It might is also be tempting to agree with the claim on the basis that arts patronage of the Arts should not be a function of the government(?). Art is subjective and it should rely on the individuals or organizations groups to pursue and develop. It would be unwise to give bureaucrats the control over funding for the funding of the Arts,for they are likely to depreciate the value of art,and make decisions based on [what I want to mean is “their own notion(about art)”.is this confused?] as these paper pushers are just that - paper pushers who does not appreciate what is called "Art". Conversely, the development and flowering of the Arts should rely on individual and non-governmental organizations rest on the artist and their patrons. Civil organizations and groups(?)[in the last sentence I put “individual” before “organizations”,then is it good to discuss “organization” before “individual” in the following? If not, should I put in the last sentence “individual”,which is shorter behind “non-governmental organizations”,which is longer?] are composed of artists and art lovers, and therefore can far better subsidize and stimulate the arts industry than government. They do a much better job than the government or rather its paper pushers.  This is aptly best illustrated by today’s painting(?) and photographic exhibitions which are nearly all(?) funded by private foundations. exhibitions of paintings and photography; nearly all are private funded.  Moreover, it is by individuals keen on the arts that the real arts are produced(?). In this sense levying heavy taxes on people to for the purpose of art may be just the opposite of the wish. In addition, real art is the expression of love of their creators.  Taxing them heavily will produce the opposite effect.

the Proper Use of Public Resources

The speaker asserted that as long as there are people struggling to those can survive, the government should not allocate public resources to(?) the Arts. It might be is [这样, 不会觉得囉嗦] tempting to agree that the basic needs for surviving(basic needs to survive?) should takes precedence. over all others(?), and Governments are funding is not always reliable with respect to for the Arts. However, I take exception with the claim when it comes to to the funding, it trvializes the  significant positive impact the resources supporting of the Arts while elevating the importance of welfare. have had on us,as well as the long-lasting existence(?) of human problems.

I agree with the statement insofar as 沒錯, 用不同的句構, 顯得多姿多彩.  human’s Basic needs for food, [clothing], work, and skills should take priority over the anything else are very important. After all, it is being alive and healthy that underlies mental and spiritual interest. A person cannot even make his living hardly has any higher pleasure(?) to speak of. without them, there can be no living.  This I agree. However, all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy! That [使用成语把文章写得活跃而一針見血] This is why entertainment in developed nations are so developed with great artistes filling every inch and corner of the industry. have a far more thriving entertainment industry than developed ones, and have more, and more active,artists and writers(?). It is not only due to(?) government’s decision as to how to use public resources, but it is of(?) people’s will. If a government still(or,continue?) to lavishes on the arts despite the condition(situation?) that most people are living on or below poverty line, then the masses will rise up to demand their due share. As to public funding, it is not only the will of the government but also the will of the people. If the government does not heed to the basic needs of those struggling in poverty, and continue to spend lavishly on the Arts, then they will rise and demand for their fair share.

in case of some confusing places , I have written it again(by translating) in my native laguage, and hope this could help know what I want to express.
可能有些地方英语表达地不清楚让人不好理解，我用自己的母语又写了一遍（其实是翻译了一遍），希望能帮您理解我的意思。

Speaker说，只要人们还在为生存挣扎，政府就不应将公共资源用于艺术。我们可能容易认为，为了生存的基本需求应比其他（需求）更先被满足，并且当（处理）与艺术相关（的事情）时，政府不总是能靠得住的。然而，当谈到用于支持艺术的资源对我们产生的巨大积极影响时，以及谈到人类面临问题的长期存在性时，我对这个说法持有异议。

我同意这个说法，人类对食物，工作和技能的最基本需求应比其他（需求）优先考虑。毕竟，活着且保持健康是心里兴趣和精神兴趣基础。一个连生活都无法维持的人很难有其他更高级的快乐可言。这就是为什么发达国家的娱乐产业远比发展中国家的繁荣，并且（发达国家）还拥有更多的、更有活力的艺术家和作家。关于怎样使用公共资源，并不仅仅与政府有关（并不仅取决于政府），他还与人民有关（取决于人民）。如果一个政府不顾大多数人都活在贫困线下或刚刚过贫困线的现状（情况），而继续将很多钱用于艺术，那么广大人民就会站起来要求得到自己应有的份额。

（我们）还（从另一个观点上）同意这个说法，这个观点就是对艺术的资助不应成为政府的一个职能。将对艺术资金的控制权交到官员们的手上是不明智的，因为他们很可能贬低（无法欣赏）艺术的价值，并根据自己（对艺术）的奇怪的概念来做决定。【我想表达“他们对艺术的概念”，odd notions of their own会不会被误认为“他们对自己的概念”？】 相反，艺术的发展应依赖于个人和非政府机构。民间机构和团体有艺术家和爱艺术的人组成，因此就可以比政府更好地资助、激励艺术产业。今天的画展和摄影展就能表明这一点，这些展览几乎都是由私人基金资助。此外，真正的艺术是由热爱艺术的个人创作出来的，从这一点讲，为了发展艺术而对个人征收很多税有可能得到相反的效果（适得其反）。